believe it or not the last 50 some years in NYC have been very lite on hurricanes. in the last few hundred years when it was colder the NYC area has had a lot more frequent and powerful storms than Sandy

they have articles on hurricanes and there are records of storms going back hundreds of years. NYC used to get hit by a Cat 3 storm every half century and smaller storms every few years. Sandy was a Cat 1.

NYC used to get hit by a hurricane every few years. the list is on wikipedia. the last 50 to 70 years it has been once a decade or so.

the 1938 hurricane was Cat 3 when it hit Long Island and moved at 70mph. It had 130 mph winds when it hit Long Island. Lots of other Cat 3 hurricanes hit New England in the last 300 years and did a lot more damage than Sandy.Sandy was barely a Cat 1 when it made landfall and moved at 15mph. the flooding was because it made landfall during a full moon and at high tide when the water is naturally a few feet higher.

Irene when it hit a few years ago was more powerful than Sandy but made landfall at low tide and there was almost no flooding

You know, people actually quantify things and then apply statistical methods, in order to see if they are deceiving themselves. You will (almost) always be able to look backwards in history to find a single worse event. The frequency and intensity of events is what matters in a statistical sense.

there was a big hurricane in 1938, 1815, 1893, 1860's. all Cat 3 hurricanes in NYC occurring before global warming. there are records of regular hurricanes going back to the 1600's as well. again, much more powerful storms than Sandy

the 1815 storm was so bad that it cut an island into two. the southern barrier island where Robert Moses State Park is used to be one island. THe Gale of 1815 destroyed part of it and its now two separate islands. it destroyed a few other smaller islands in the area as well.

You'd be wrong. I am an actuary, and I can say that insurance premiums generally correspond pretty well to the actual risk. That's because the current insurance market is very competitive (note: I am only referring to traditional insurance, such as car, house, life, and whatnot, NOT life insurance). Insurance companies are always trying to see if they can undercut the competition. For the most part, the insurance companies don't make money from your payments, but just on interest accrued from investing thos

So as we watch CO2 levels steadily rise, it gives us insight into how much of these "natural processes" are effecting greenhouse gases in our atmosphere versus what we are contributing to these levels. And I think it's important to remind people that 1) these levels are steadily rising so no, the Earth is not keeping itself in check, 2) it's not just something where turn on the "remove CO2 machines" to fix it and 3) if natural processes are the cause of these levels of CO2, where is the corresponding increase in these natural processes?

Seriously people tell me all the time that one volcanic eruption dwarfs anything man could do in a decade. And I don't know where they get this shit. So tell me, where are all these new volcanic eruptions to explain this steady trend upward? Oh, we can't report that it's rising because you feel offended that it's "alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines." With all due respect, you're not helping this situation!

Offended? Plz. Hardly. IRepeating the same headline year after year about the same trend misinforms the public about the gravity of the problem. The problem, as you point out, is that people don't get the basics, so why compound the problem with lousy reporting?

The problem, as you point out, is that people don't get the basics, so why compound the problem with lousy reporting?

People don't want to get the basics due to the implications, so it doesn't matter how they are reported, or if at all. Some excuse to ignore inconvenient facts can always be found, thus justifying not dealing with the problem right now and delaying the associated pain.

That's pretty poor context. That graph is pure distortion. It's has the time from 1870 to now at one scale and the rest in thousands of years. Moreover, it clearly shows that temperatures have been rising for years before civilization was around and is now at the high point.

Since we are all pretty well aware that we are between ice ages it doesn't say much at all and it gives absolutely no indication if the current warming trend is usual or not.

I understand that there are many arguments as to whether global climate change exists, and/or how sever it is. I also understand that trying to reduce our emissions significantly can come at some economic cost. But there are still many low hanging fruits that we could easily tackle as a compromise, at very little cost.

To name a few:

- Boats - No emissions controls at all currently- Planes - Trains should be a better option (particularly in the U.S.)- Coal power plants - Outdated tech- Lawn mowers - Electric mowers could replace most people's mowing needs- Excessive water consumption - Top loading washing machines are a colossal waste of fresh water

Additionally, there have been numerous studies linking various forms of pollution to cancer and other serious health effects. So we stand to gain healthier people and lower health care costs by reducing our emissions as well.

I'm all for lowering emissions, but don't forget about the massive damage that's already been done. To use an analogy, we're pushing a rock down a hill. Lowering emissions means only pushing it less down the hill. We need to stop pushing entirely, get on the other side, slow it down, stop it, and push it back up. That's going to entail a lot more work than replacing lawn mowers and washing machines. We need to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere, suck out pollution in the air, water, and soil, regrow forests and other ecosystems, and figure out how to use the remaining resources of the planet sustainably.

We need to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere, suck out pollution in the air, water, and soil, regrow forests and other ecosystems, and figure out how to use the remaining resources of the planet sustainably.

And do all that without using combustion processes of any kind to power the planetary-scale CO2 sequestration machinery required.And while generating a net energy surplus to feed, house and power our civilisation.

It's not so much that we've just been pushing that boulder downhill towards the dam that will flood our village - we've been actively attaching ropes and pulleys to it and using its accelerating slide down the mountain to draw our water, irrigate our crops, and grind our wheat. Then we've been gambling all our life savings on the rock always moving faster and faster. And to make sure it does, we've got a crew running ahead digging and smoothing its passage, because if it slows down even a tiny bit, first our banks crash, and then we all starve.

And while a few scientists have been shouting, "hey, that rock's going to destroy your village when it hits! Get out of the way, or slow it down!", there's an active crowd throwing rotten vegetables at them and saying, "Shut up, you economy-wreckers! Push that rock down faster! Faster! OMG PUSH FASTER OR WE'RE DOOMED!!!"

If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month

.
Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....

Oh, my sweet summer child! What do you know about fear? Fear is for the winter, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep; fear is for the Long Night, when the sun hides for years and children are born and live and die all in darkness...

Huh. That's funny because where I live, we have received colder than average months two winters in a row. We're talking freezing temperatures in a place that rarely gets frost on the windshields! In fact, I believe we even broke a record low from the 1930s the winter before last.

Remember, for pseudo-skeptics, even the most appallingly idiotic skeptical comment is proof against whatever science they are battling, but the bar on science's side must always be set impossibly high.

Localization is not the question, and in fact most climate discussion I find frustrating because it's the wrong argument. The argument should not be "Is man changing the climate?" but rather "Are we fucking things up?"

If we look at the suggested question, the answer is absolutely "yes". First, we know for a fact that Oil is not sustainable with the current population. Even if we all recycled plastics Oil vanishes faster than the earth is producing new Oil. Second, we are polluting everything. That pollution has not gotten better recently, but rather worse since we are arguing "Climate" instead of addressing our impact. This in turn has resulted in reduced controls, higher acceptable levels of pollution, and deregulation. Our pollution rate is not sustainable. Lastly, are we rendering portions of the Earth inhabitable and useless? The obvious answer to that question is also yes. Numerous studies show how we have rendered at least 10% of the Earths farming area useless for at least 100 years and that number is increasing. The same goes for Oceans and dead zones in them.

Look at it this way. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that coal power is bad for people's health. Both the powdering process for the coal, and the burning of the coal pollute the environment something fierce. We do so knowing it's bad because it makes some people a whole lot of money regardless of the impact. The excuse to continue has nothing to do with "is it bad" but rather "it's cheaper than wind power (which could be argued rather heavily from the angle of wind not being as profitable to the same people making money from fossil fuels)".

We need to get back to the real issue, which by the way was prominent in the 70s and 80s by the way.

If you had read my entire post, you would have seen this part which is the lead up to the sentence you selectively quote out of context:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

It clearly talks about global average temperatures, a singular average temperature average across land and ocean surfaces

However, if you prefer to ignore great swaths of text so that you can feel good about yourself, feel free to continue to parade your ignorance.

It's hard to convince the general public not steeped in an interest in science from an early age the way a lot of the geekverse was. People need to see something happening in a big, clear way before they believe it.

Isn't that right next to a volcano? Didn't they observe a sharp rise a few years ago? The claims are interesting and all, but I think they chose to show a plot from an observation point that is exceptional.

...As an individual, is to reduce/eliminate the consumption of farm animals. We breed billions of cows and pigs, and feed them unnaturual diets--which greatly increases their flatulence. So we're pumping massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere that wouldn't be there otherwise (Cows in particular are methane machines, and there would be nowhere near as many as there are now if not for humans). Methane is 20x better at trapping heat than CO2, and recycles out of the atmosphere in 7 years instead of 100. We could see immediate effects on global warming.

But in addition to that, most deforestation is being done so that cattle has grazing land. That's where most of the Amazon is going now--not to make wood or paper, or even just room for people, but so that cattle have grazing land, and cheap beef can be exported to fast food chains. Fast food chains are shrinking the lungs of the world.

Anybody ever notice the irony that conservatives keep talking about not wanting to "crush future generations with debt" when talking about the US National Debt, but are rabidly against the notion that they are actively working to crush future generations in an entirely different, but equally difficult to survive way?

The difference: There is no consensus among economists about how burdensome the national debt really is - macroeconomics simply doesn't work the same way corporate or personal finances do. Nobel Prizes are still awarded to Keynesian economists, as well as monetarists and adherents of the Austrian school. Even though these schools of economic thought have radically different and conflicting viewpoints, each school continues to win Nobel prizes. There simply is no consensus as to how economies actually work.

On the other hand, among climate scientists, the conclusion is nearly unanimous with an overall consensus of over 98%: The climate is warming, and human burning of hydrocarbons is the cause.

The vast majority of climate deniers come from people who have no credible qualifications; a dentist shouldn't have to argue about how to pull a tooth with a businessman with a string and a door.

Yet climate scientists have to argue with crackpots with a meat thermometer and a solo cup.

No but the evidence is pretty good that it is primarily forced by CO2. And, in a very real sense it makes little difference if it's anthropogenic or due to His Noodlieness eating that giant bean burrito. We will still have to deal with relatively rapid environmental changes that will cause rapid economic and political pressures which, on top of the fact that there are too many humans running around, is going to create some 'interesting times' for us all.

A. Yes, we have had a very nice time for the last 400 years or so and that may be coming to an end. Humans may have had a big hand in pushing things into a less stable configuration, but regardless of the source the fact is that climate stability should not be something that we are counting on as a whole species. Yes, things might be tougher for a while but as a species we need to roll with it.

B. Too many humans is a problem that we need to solve in one way or another. One way is to fall into the "sustai

[Is there enough data] to show this is definitely not a naturally occurring cycle?

That's the wrong question. It's epistemologically broken. The reason is that you can't prove non-existence of something through data. So if your standard of proof is, "show there is no natural process, possibly unknown to current science, which might account for climate trends better than the currently accepted scientific consensus," you will never be satisfied.

So a better question would be, "Is there any evidence that suggests global warming might be due to some natural, cyclical process?" The answer is,

Yes, because everyone knows that global plant coverage is increasing at an enormous rate and will continue to do so as the global population expands.[/sarcasm] All the plant growth of a decade wouldn't soak up the CO2 from a single year of our emissions, not to mention the fact that in 100 years when those plants die they'll release all that CO2 right back into the atmosphere.

Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process will start to decrease carbon levels

Meagrees. Methinks it is much more likely that ledow (319597) is much more up to speed on climate modelling, geology, large scale biology and other natural processes than armies of scientists who have devoted large parts of their lives to studying this. Mealsothinks that people who have been studying it for a long time and spent their lives shooting down their collegues and being shot down (science is like that: there's no consipracy, it's generally a bunch of people desperately trying to make a name for themselves by proving everyone else wrong) are far more likely to have missed something obvious than ledow (319597).

Mewouldalso like to point out that your arrogance and self belief is quite astounding if you think that you're more knowledgable than the world experts.

Meisnot going to link to all the arguments about why your last paragraph is tosh because they are easily found and you would have read them by now if you actually had an open mind, rather than an ideology.

What I don't get is why we can't see this shit coming. We make all these predictions about what's going to happen, and then one day, BAM! "Oh shit! While we weren't looking, the earth got hotter, like our models said!" It's not ever a gradual report. There's like, "The earth is getting warmer" "The average temperature is increasing" "Global average temperature is in an up-trend" "TODAY, studies found that the earth is TWO DEGREES HOTTER!" "Earth still getting hotter" "Earth hotter still" "Global warm

Maybe you can point us to where "it got several degrees hotter than we thought it was while we weren't looking". It sounds like you're making it up just to be argumentative. The average global temperature has risen about one degree Celsius over the past several decades, and I don't think that has surprised many climatologists because it's in line with the predictions we've seen since the nineteenth century [wikipedia.org].

There is no way to gather a significant amount of data to suggest that we're doing anything "bad"

The amount of carbon (and pollution) we sending into the atmosphere is staggering, and currently accelerating.Do you like the earth's atmosphere as it is now? Do you think we can just carry on going in this direction, without adversely affecting it?

Yep, but most likely the process is going to create inhospitable climates for people (which would reduce carbon levels, just not the kind you're thinking)

significant amount of data to suggest that we're doing anything "bad" or that anything "good"

You're ignoring the fact that global temperatures are definitely rising. Whether it's from anthropogenic "good" or "bad" is beside the point. It is going to get very, very tough for people to live on this planet in the next 20-50 years. It would be wise to start figuring out ways to deal with arid cropland, ocean acidification and dried up aquifers. Oh, a

There is no way to gather a significant amount of data to suggest that we're doing anything "bad" or that anything "good" we do is working without comparing to some 10,000+ year cycle that we've never observed. Best records for such things go back a few hundred years, and beyond that the data is very sketchy and specific only to specific areas (e.g. ice cores, etc.).

Paleoclimatology is not exactly "sketchy". It studies global trends over millennia, and provides far more information than just a book of thermometer readings from the measly few years humans have been recording such things. There is indeed a large body of data. They use ice core data to determine temperatures and atmospheric composition. They have calibrated those readings based on the few hundred years of written records available. They also corroborate the data with other evidence, such as archaeological and fossil data, and even historical accounts of weather related events. No one piece of data tells the whole story, which is why they have gone to such great lengths to collect as much as possible from a wide variety of sources. Put together, the current body of evidence is scientifically acceptable.

The data is available, it's validated, and it's significant. Instead of continuing to deny climate change is happening, and appearing foolish to people who know better, why not put forth some plausible hypotheses about why you think the climate change that is happening now has natural causes at its core, and offer some tests to validate your theories?

Correct, but they also find that CO2 rises after temperature, not before, with a lag time of at least a couple of centuries. What's interesting is that right now CO2 is rising first, which means that there are very interesting questions about the degree to which this impact

Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process will start to decrease carbon levels and then those people put in charge of whatever-crackpot-carbon-saving scheme now will be able to do an I-told-you-so then. When, really, everything we did made zero difference whatsoever.

Magical thinking at its worst. If you look at the evidence, god forbid, you'll find that there many examples of opposite happening. For instance warming is causing an accelerated release of methane from permafrost and since methane is a strong greenhouse gas... Sea warming is starting to cause release of methane hydrate deposits from the sea floor, which will also accelerate warming. Reduction of ice cover on the Arctic Ocean is reducing albedo (the amount of solar radiation (heat) reflected back into space). All of these are factors that are causing an acceleration of global warming.

Yes, the reporting sucks, as usual. If the climate were perfectly stable (never is) and human economic growth continued you would EXPECT damages from pretty much everything to increase unless people in general were rational and had enough foresight to mitigate obvious problems like putting lots of expensive things next to the ocean.

Add a changing environment (hotter, colder - it really doesn't make much difference) and you're going to have more damage - unless you get smart about where to place things.

But the climate is changing - and changing fairly quickly. Whether or not mankind is really forcing the change or not, it still is going to be a big problem because we are pushing the carrying capacity of the planet at present. If you look at the history of human kind it is apparent that climate change has forced numerous civilizations to move, adapt or collapse (or various combinations). Given close to 7 billion people, moving lots of them doesn't work well. Adapting will certainly happen - some more successful than others and collapse is definitely a possibility.

Just try to ignore the media - as usual, it's not being terribly helpful.

If you don't believe that you need to think seriously about your own personal contributions to the problem, then you rob future generations by your sloth.

There will be all sorts of methods, some that work, some that are insane and don't work, but I appreciate California trying to tackle the problem. With hard work, the California example will help mitigate the problem and raise understanding of how to make it work.

That statement sounds alarmist to me. Given the number of times I've heard California's economy is in bad shape in the past, and how business seems to be thriving there, I think there isn't much to worry about.

With hard work, the California example will help mitigate the problem...

Yes, we should pay the price so rich environmental scientologists can scurry off to Rio in the wintertime more often and not feel guilty about it. See, this is one of the big issues behind a lot of the 'green' movements. All the sacrifice is expected to come from our hides. I'll believe the likes of Al Gore are serious when they sell their private jets and start riding public transport.

Lots of work to be done. International ship exhaust is unbelievably, even insanely high and totally unregulated. We have lots of "clean coal" to replace, along with the jobs that'll be lost. One mountain at a time....

It will have a massive effect. You don't seriously expect auto manufacturers to design and engineer new cars, set up plants to produce all the component parts, and totally retool their assembly lines to build these new models overnight, do you?

Unless someone comes along and repeals the CAFE requirements, which is unlikely, given the political bad-will it would cause, Obama and Congress have made a significant step towards reducing total US emissions.

Massive unemployment and the looming economic collapse and the mass starvation that follows are quite effective in reducing a populations' carbon footprint. By that metric, we're well on the way to huge reductions in US CO2 output.

I'm the future generation. I have a grandson due in March. It's not an abstract idea. There will be no zombie apocalypse. There will be children.

Maybe we're the generation that realized through scientific discovery, that there are limitations to resources. Maybe we took responsibility for our actions, rather than blithely ignoring the warning signs.

Wealth creation is a long tried and true, but ultimately vacuous destination. Maybe we sacrifice a little as a world community and benefit greatly from having done so, rather than hedonistically building wads of cash and grandiose castles.

War is not inevitable. Those that believe this often use it as an excuse to behave badly and cowardly rather than face up to the fact that we all live on this planet together. Degrading the economy will be laughable in the face of not being able to breathe, with shorelines starting in the Rockies and Appalachia.

" 'Future generations' is an abstract idea that completely worthless from our perspective, we will never meet them, we will never know if they even will exist or not and it is really not our problem what challenges they will face as time progresses"

Spoken by someone who is either childless or has no concern whatsoever for the welfare of his offspring.

Our actions are constrained in all manner of ways for the greater good. You can't drive at 90mph down a freeway in the wrong direction; it does indeed make you morally inferior if you do.

Personal liberties are not absolute proof against a society, or indeed, an entire civilization trying to save itself.

Beyond that, do you think the universe cares about your ideological or moral views? Do you think a hurricane a drought can be prevented by Libertarian extremism? Do you think the universe will alter the laws of physics based on the makeup of the US Congress or on some strident interpretation of the Constitution?

There has to be some point when reality takes you by the balls and yanks you out of your ideological underpinnings. The universe doesn't fucking care about you, not one fucking little bit. It will squash a Libertarian just as easily and with as little thought as a Republican, Democrat, socialist, anarchist, Presbyterian, atheist or whatever. This idea that you can counter reality with rhetorical lectures is beyond bizarre.

Oddly enough, at least some people think the long term survival of our civilization is a tad more important than your ideological leanings. I know, that seems shocking, seeing as you believe you should be constrained by no interest but your own, but there you have it.

Gee, you must be a well studied economist!!! You must have studied historic emissions trading programs [wikipedia.org], and how they were not successful like most people believe, and that the data is just plain wrong!!!

A cap and trade program on sulfur emissions led to substantial reductions in acid rain, so it's one approach with real-world evidence that it can work. Because it provides a financial incentive for reducing emissions, the "invisible hand" directs resources to just those areas that are most efficient, and stimulates innovation to develop new ways of reducing emissionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program [wikipedia.org]

Since most of your food is grown in warmer climates, good luck eating when the food runs out. Most food grown everywhere only does so in specific climates. Vary the temperature, rainfall, soil salinity, etc, etc even slightly and it dies. We're looking at global collapse of the food distribution network.

This is a great point. This study [iop.org] shows an increase in arable land by as much as 67% in some places. Overall though it sites a figure somewhere between a decrease of 1.7% to a total increase of 4.4%.

As a Canadian, I like to think of Obama forcing cake down into faces of the Republican party with one hand while trying to (ineptly) fix everything else with his other hand. Better to have awkward, clumsy progress in sorta the right direction than none at all.

Except of course that there is no local signal from intermittent volcanism, and that this issue has been examined by scientists decades ago and is confirmed by many other measuring stations. And that the extra CO2 from fossils can be distinguished by a slightly different isotopic ratio.

There is a persistent behavior in climate "skeptics" who think they are clever. They take 15 seconds and imagine one simple consideration in response to a popularized sound bite and assume that somehow they gotcha'ed thousands of people who spend their lifetimes working on the problem.

There is another aspect of this. People talk all the time about there being a cult following of climate change believers and how this is nearly a religion. Religious fevor has through the ages produced some very dedicated individuals willing to go to incredible lengths in pursuit of their beliefs.

...

So where are the extraordinary acts?

I think you have things backwards. Climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the mainstream, evidence-based consensus. It's the deniers who are like a religion. Just like "creation science", they have people who cherry-pick evidence, mash figures, and come up with conclusions that are counter to the mainstream. Just like "creation science", they have cheerleaders who repeat arguments that have been refuted time and time again (e.g. "volcanoes").

Oh, and of course, there's those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry, who'll back the denialist message, whether they believe it or not.

So perhaps the absence of "extraordinary acts" like blowing up coal fired power stations, is because the people keenest on reducing CO2 emissions, are sane, level headed people.

"Do we know that reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere - by whatever means necessary - will reverse or start to reverse climate change?"

If we're driving towards a cliff, do we know whether braking will prevent a crash? If we don't know, does that mean we shouldn't brake?

We know that accelerating our greenhouse gas emissions will kill us all.

James Lovelock takes the view that we've missed our chance to reverse or slow down global warming. He says that efforts to reduce CO2 output are diverting resource that could be used instead to adapt to the changed world. That is, instead of spending $1 billion moving to a CO2 neutral energy source, spend the $1B on flood defences, agriculture suitable for a warmer climate, relocating population centres as the sea level rises.

With your car/cliff analogy - since we don't know whether braking will stop the ca

It's true that there is latency in recovery from greenhouse gasses. Plants are only a temporary solution, since much of what they capture will eventually be released back into the atmosphere. You can read some statistics here [www.ipcc.ch] about how the concentrations of the major gasses have changed. The numbers at the bottom for residence time can be interpreted as "how long it stays in the atmosphere", i.e. how long before a reduction is noticed. CO2's huge variability is because most of the time when CO2 leaves the a

Personally, I believe that a disaster of this magnitude should drop the planet into a wartime command economy. We shouldn't be wasting our time with mechanisms of self-interest like capitalism when they're so transparently a threat to our well-being. There are gentler ways of dealing with the problem involving subsidies and the creation of a whole new industry, certainly, but no one should be unwilling to deal with the situation on crisis terms if nece

1) Believing in Climate Change must be like a religion.2) No Climate Change believers have resorted to illegal acts to stop pollution.Therefore: Even Climate Change Believers don't believe in their "religion" enough so why should everyone else?

I'd argue that 1 is wrong because most folks who "believe" (using that word loosely) in climate change do so because they've seen the evidence. As for 2, you can believe in a religion and not commit illegal acts to further your religion. I'm Jewish and keep kosher. I don't go around bombing pork processing centers. Does this mean that I'm not a "true believer"? If a religious belief I held was opposed by a societal law (e.g. If a public school was requiring students to recite Christian prayers), I'd work within the system to change this law (e.g. talk to the school board, local/state officials, etc). I wouldn't immediately resort to violence. (Going back to my example, bombing the school might stop the forced prayers in the short term, but would only hurt my cause long term.) So even if #1 and #2 were true, your conclusion is false.

What are these "draconian means" I keep seeing people refer to? Increasing energy efficiency seems quite sensible to me, especially given the current cost of energy. And we will have to switch to alternative energy sources some day because fossil fuels will run out. The means seem perfectly reasonable and sensible to me, not "draconian". Of course, the longer we delay, the more draconian the means will need to become, so we better get started right away to reduce the draconianness as much as possible.

I just want to know: do you keep these in a text editor and just paste them over, or did you write this one on the spot? C'mon. You'll never be a successful troll if you're that brazen. You have to lead people on with ambiguous comments first.

The effects of global warming [wikipedia.org] are going be more severe than the slight discomfort of feeling warm. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced. Droughts will be more common. GDP will drop. It's economically favorable to us in the long run to work on reducing carbon dioxide emissions now. In any case, fossil fuels will nor last forever, so we will need to develop alternative energy sources at some point. I would rather develop them earlier so their cost will come down, which will help keep energy prices lower as fossil fuels run out.

Seriously, everybody likes to point to America, yet, our emissions continue to go downwards. OTOH, ALL of the decreases in emissions are overcome by China ALONE.

You serious? Well, if you are serious, how about some facts? To make it easier for you, I'll start
- About 17 percent [wikipedia.org] of China's electricity came from renewable sources in 2007, led by the world's largest number of hydroelectric generators. China had a total installed capacity of hydropower of 197 GW in 2009.
- China leads the world in renewable energy [guardian.co.uk]
- China Sets New Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Goals [china-briefing.com] - The newly released Plan aims to reduce China’s carbon intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP – by 17 percent by 2015, compared with 2010 levels.